Its an electro-optical targeting module.

Check this out :

Found some more details and performance specs. on the IRST sensor unit under the MiG-35 from this web page.

http://www.vpk-news.ru/article.asp?pr_sign=archive.2007.175.articles.conception_01

Yet another interesting feature of the MiG-35 is the new Infra-red Search and Track system (IRST) sensor unit developed by the Precision Instruments Scientific Research Institute, previously, this scientific-production organization mainly worked within different branches of the Space programme. Within the IRST system there are two sensor units, one forward facing and the other downward facing, both operating in the infra-red and television channel range – along with a laser rangefinder, which can also be used for the illumination of targets during the launching and guidance of precision guided munitions. The forward facing sensor unit has a field of view of 90° to the left and right of the centre-line and from -15° to +60° in elevation, while the lower optical “ball” operates in the entire lower hemisphere. Target detection range for the forward facing sensor unit is 15 km while for the downward facing unit, to 45 km (the Sensor unit can locate a tank at a distance of 20 km, a sea vessel – to 40 km).

The main radar, the IRST, along with the wingtip mounted sensors, are all integrated into a unique defensive system for the aircraft. The entire system can detect the launch of a missile and determine whether the aircraft has actually been targeted by this missile. The trajectory of the missile is then calculated, along with the oncoming missile’s potential range, guidance type and whether the aircraft is being illuminated by laser beam. Following the processing of this information the command may be given to discharge flares or activate electronic counter-measures (ECM). The pilot may also be advised of the best flight vector to fly, in order to carry out evasive maneuvers. The defensive systems can detect the launch of an air-to-air missile at a distance of up to 30 km, a surface-to-air missile, up to 50 km, a MANPADS, up to 10 km. The minimum detection range of hostile missiles posing a threat to the aircraft is 4 km. The laser has a working range out to 30 km.

The MiG-35 is being offered for export with the usual range of aerial weaponry. However, for the Aero India 2007 air show the producers of the aircraft are also offering, for air strikes against land targets, a long range cruise missile type weapon with active radar guidance, the 3M14-AE, developed by the Yekaterinburg Design Bureau “Novator”.

It seems that the IRST system on the MiG-35 serves three main roles: Firstly, for searching and tracking other aircraft, secondly, for the detection of ground targets and the subsequent guidance of PGMs, thirdly, as part of a missile approach warning system ‘MAWS’, in conjunction with the main radar and RWR.

I was curious about the cruise missile (it’s called Kalibr-A – from the ‘Club’ family) being offered by the Russians. Found a lot of info about it on this web page:

http://www.missiles.ru/3m-14ae.htm

It’s got a range of 300 km, has a 1000 lb warhead and uses a terrain following radar along with INS and GPS for guidance.
What ever about the MiG-35, but I wonder if this missile could be mounted on the Indian Navy’s MiG-29Ks, presuming that there are no weight limitations (The missile weights 1400 kg) for carrier operations. I’m sure this would give the INS a power projection capability second to none (excepting the USN of course).

Who knows, The Indians might even want to fit a nuke into some of them…

Kalibr-A

I’m pretty sure it’s the original MiG-29M2 cockpit (i.e. before it became the MiG-35, with an additional LCD screen replacing the last analog gauges).

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_293.shtml

You are more than sure – you are completely correct. The “1.44” is sometimes called the MiG-39 isn’t it? But this guy calls it the MiG-35 as well. Maybe this is where the confusion lies??

What does the panel of the “1.44” look like though (it wouldn’t by any chance look like the MiG-29M2’s, they’re both from about the same year after all – 2000?)??:confused: :confused:

Armstrong Saphire engine as the J-65 (F-84F, A-4, )
RR Nene engine as the J-42 (used in the F-9F Panther)

The Turbomeca Marabore turbojet engine of the Fouga Magister became the Continental-Teledyne J-69 powerplant for the Cessna T-37 ‘Tweet’.

Most early generation ‘MCLOS’ anti-tank missiles in US army service were French designs such as SS10/SS11/Entac. The Americans even used them in Vietnam, firing them from Huey Helicopters.

Believe or not, the Nazi German V-1 buzz bomb actually entered limited service with the USAF in the 1940s as the JB-2 Loon. Over 1000 were built in American factories, including the Pulsejet powerplant.

Photo from: http://www.vectorsite.net

Fulcrums have quite a pleasing safety record, AFAIK.

To be honest I don’t know whether the MiG-29 or the F-16 has a good or bad safety record, I just thought I’d be a bit provocative to that previous poster’s post, the main idea of which I had to argue against.

By what yardstick are we measuring the safety record of the F-16 (or the MiG-29 even)?

Who decides which is a dangerous aircraft and which isn’t anyway?

Rubbish. You are confusing shot at with shot with. Before stinger the Afghans were given lots of Strelas captured from Arab states fighting Israel. They barely got one kill with them. Most of the early kills were from HMG ambushes where 14.5mm and 12.7mm HMGs were positioned to fire down on helos from above. What is shooting down all those American helos in Iraq is largely RPG and small arms fire. On the rare occasion a guided missile has been responsible it would more likely be an SA-14 than SA-7. In Chechnia the Chechen rebels had access to Soviet Army weapons bases in Chechnia. That means Iglas, Strelas were obsolete more than 20 years ago in Soviet army units.

Well OK, perhaps I should have said that both Strela and Igla together, were more successful than the AIM-92 Stinger – and it still wouldn’t change my main point that the Soviet/ Russian missiles are far more available to any insurgent/freedom fighter/terrorist organisation that should want to shoot down any aircraft – be it in the Middle East or in Southern Russia. What you said about most aircraft kills been due to 12.62/14.5mm machine guns and RPGs is also true, including the Soviet-Afghan war.
The fact that machine guns were a more lethal anti-aircraft weapon in the Soviet-Afghan war again only highlights my point that the significance of American supplied MANPAD missiles to the Mujahadeen is very oversold – by the time the Mujahadeen received their first Stingers (in late 1986) the Soviets had already lost hundreds of aircraft and were already desperate to leave Afghanistan.

Star49
all these cases are different. study a little bit deeper.

I’ve made my analogy very clear. If you think you’ve got a counter-answer to it, you should explain “a little bit deeper”!

The story from an old engineer (he was 70 in the mid-1970s and was the B-58 guided weapon pod program manager before it was cancelled) was the capsule clamshells did not close immediately when the hatch blew. This timing issue caused the unfortunate death of the crew due to brain hemmorage. He also said the capsules went through more tests than the Mercury space capsule. The test staff used sedated bears during early tests of the capsules so no human was endangered during testing. One human test involved a manned capsule floating in a the ocean for 24 hours. The man who rode the capsule had to have medical treatment for seasickness because of capsule motion in the waves.

Yet again, J boyle’s statement that the aviation technology which we take for granted nowadays was at that time (1950s) absolutely cutting edge and experimental also applies to most crew escape systems of that period.

Don’t forget the downward firing ejection seats of the early series F-104A…or the funny upward hinging canopy windshield on the early MiG-21F series, which I believe wasn’t too successful in actual service either.

Mixing different fighters by that.

The MiG-15 (I-310) till bis was a subsonic design.
The MiG-17 (I-330) till F was a transonic design.
Just to give an example

There is probably less difference between a MiG-15 and MiG-17 than there is for example the MiG-21F-13 and a MiG-21Bis, or even say between the original F-16A of the late 1970s and the more recent F-16s being delivered to the United Arab Emirates!

On second thoughts maybe I’ll change the ranking of the F-105.
Both the F-16 and F-15(E) have probably also seen more air-to-ground than the ‘Thud’ at this stage in time as well…

1. MiG-15/17
2. F-86
3. MiG-21
4. F-4 Phantom
5. Mirage III
6. F-16
7. F-15
8. F-105
9. Hawker Hunter
10. F-14

Anyway we were discussing helicopter survivability.

Has anyone ever thought of adapting one of the Active Protection Systems which are available now for tanks and other armoured vehicles for defeating such treats as RPGs and guided anti-tank missiles.

I have in mind Russia’s Shtora and Arena systems and also Raphael’s Trophy.

I also found out about another Israeli system ‘Iron Fist’ recently from here

http://www.defense-update.com/products/i/iron-fist.htm

I don’t see any technical problems in mounting such systems on helicopters. The entire weight of the whole system, including launchers, radar antennae and Fire Control System shouldn’t be too prohibitive, certainly not for a Chinook, Black Hawk or even a AH-64. I don’t see why it should be anymore difficult to knock out MANPADS missile compared to an anti-tank missile?:confused:

In fact I should think there are advantages in operating such systems from heli’s, such as reduced danger to surrounding friendly infantry and a more unobstructed field of view for the radar systems (being located further away from the ground).You could also connect the system to automatic flares dispensers and that was one thing I noticed about that film of that CH-46 getting shot down – the absence of flares, which may have to do with the fact that helicopters have to spend so much time over urban areas in Iraq.

‘Iron Fist’ in action.